July 7, 2011

"The public response on this issue is a clear signal that markets – not governments – should be driving technological advancements. I will join my colleagues to vote yes on a bill to protect consumer choice and guard against federal overreach."

96 comments:

"“Phasing in energy efficient light bulbs means more choices and more savings and that’s good for families, the country and the environment," the ads say."

Banning other types of light bulbs does not mean more choices. You know, I'm less upset with them trying to limit our choices than I am with their blatant and transparent doublespeak. Do they think we are so stupid to not see it, or is it that they just do not care any more.

Just more evidence that people do not govern themselves all that well. Or, maybe better that those drafting laws and regulations are human, and thus most often do not anticipate all the consequences of their actions.

The conservative/libertarian response to this is to be less aggressive in law and regulation making. The liberal one is to say, trust me, I will get it next time.

It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use. It was my goal to force incandescent-bulb makers to unleash the magic efficiency technology they've been keeping on the shelf in the secret vault, right next to the 300-mpg carburetor.

Do they think we are so stupid to not see it, or is it that they just do not care any more.

I'm of the opinion that old habits die hard. Even for relatively newly elected officials in DC, there is a Way of doing things that hasn't caught up with the Information Age. This will most likely continue for another ten years or so.

"It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use." That's why I sponsored my original bill to have the federal government in Washington declare it illegal to sell the kind of light bulbs that most people want to buy.

Seriously, what kind of split personality must a Congressmen have to think he can get away with such an obvious falsehood? It WAS his goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs I should use, when he originally sponsored the legislation that outlawed most incandescent bulbs.

who cares if CFL's or LED's are more efficient ... gas heat is more efficient that electric heating isn't it ... the government's job is not to eliminate the least efficent products from the market ...

they can educate us and tell us that its better for Gaia to use CFL's (until you break one and that NEVER happens) but that should be the limit to the governments role ...

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is steamed. In a conference call with conservative bloggers this morning he railed against the closed negotiations on the debt ceiling. I asked him what he thought of the prospect of a “grand bargain” with Social Security and Medicare cuts in exchange for tax hikes. He was plainly livid: “It is amazing to me . . . that you reporters have more detail than members of Congress.”

"Well gee Fred, why don't you tell us what the "goal" was you silly little nanny, you!"

I think Paul nailed it upthread: "It was my goal to force incandescent-bulb makers to unleash the magic efficiency technology they've been keeping on the shelf in the secret vault, right next to the 300-mpg carburetor."

These people think we live in a Star Trek world where Scotty figures out a way around the "laws of physics". In a 60 minute episode, no less.

This is a perfect example of the stupidity of government trying to dictate the market.

First, we all paid too much for lousy, dangerous bulbs, that we were lied about on performance and useful life.

Second, manufacturers spent billions to create and supply this new forced market.

Third, these manufacturers did not invest in new better technology because it was locked in law and seemed to be at the whim of government anyway, so why invest in anything the government is not already behind.

Fourth, it's now all gonna fall apart, alternatives are not ready, and the environment is far more polluted with mercury now IN OUR HOMES.

Genius.

If this was the goal, you're evil. If it was not, you're an incompetent with no understanding of history or economics.

What are it's chances in the Senate? I need them to hurry up and pass this thing. We have a small house, with limited closet space. My light bulb stash already takes up an inordinate amout of space and I've only just started hoarding.

Paul did have it right. The thinking is that If Washington decrees it then it shall be. The green "revolution" is built on this idea. As if entrepeneurs havent been killing themselves for decades trying to make batteries store more energy longer! As if this is Obama's idea! It makes you want to weep.

And of course once laws like this come into play enter the faceless ham-fisted regulatory bureaucrats whose stubborness rivals that of a Missouri mule; having the remorseless heart of Inspector Javert, and that would make Kafka's bureaucrats look like the soul of rational efficiency, nuance and understanding..

Upton is in deep trouble and Boehner had better produce his vote or he, too, is in trouble. This is the fallout from the failed global warming scam. The comments at Politico are interesting. They are about "jobs" showing they don't realize what this ban did to American jobs.

If I may please make a remark, the government is an institution; the exact same people that are in government leadership are in the private sector leadership. They are all selling they wares for the public consumption. When the “Man” tell you to purchase a square light bulb you buy it, if you know what is good for you. Can you imagine how much investment went into the manufacturing of the new light bulbs, who you think is responsible to cover the loss? The Congress passed a law and people invested money. Every time legislation gets passed, somebody gets paid and every time it gets repelled somebody gets paid. So who got paid the first time and who will be getting paid when the repeal takes effect? Just one more thing, if you can please look up chronologically how many laws, regulations and mandates have been passed by the Congress in the last fifty years? Information like that could easily have us, “We the People” talking for few months. Thank you

Of course now that the last frackin' incandescent light bulb factory in the USA has closed (happened last February I think) it's going to be hard for good old Fred to make good on his epiphany.

Some little green weinie on the Obama GMC takeover crew was told by a GMC engineer that an Obama team goal could not be achieved without repealing the laws of physics.

Honest to gosh--or so the story goes, the Obama staffer replied he "was not familiar with the laws of physics, but if he could be pointed to where they were, he was sure that Team Obama could repeal them."

No doubt aprocyphal--but when you look at Team Obama's latest goal for car highway mileage, it's indicative that the little fellow has got a big promotion and is now the "Highway Mileage Czar".

"It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use."

No, it was your goal to put American lightbulb makers out of business.

Asshole."

Your link, over the swear word... it doesn't go anywhere relevant to this story. It's just a link to your blog.

Can't you at least write something relevant before you suggest via link you have something to say? Sometimes it's hard to distinguish between you and a spammer. I realize by now you're actually are a decent blogger... but things like this are extremely off-putting. Think about it. I haven't clicked a link of yours in months because I just expect your links to be meaningless. I gave you another shot and now it'll be a long time before I try again.

Re: “The switch lightbulb,” and “LED bulbs seem to break the bank by comparison. But that's only until you do the math.”

Viewed as a consumer purchase, what this analysis is missing is the risk factor. That is, you just know there’s a good chance that this won’t really last for 20,000 hours. And if you buy a $20. lightbulb and it dies in a year or two, you just know that even if it’s guaranteed you won’t have the receipt. And so, if you’re going to use a spreadsheet to calculate its value, you really should consider the risk.

Aside from that, we don’t really know what’s meant by “20,000 hours average life.” BUT, it’s common to rate the life of an LED lamp as the time to half-brightness. And so the good news is that it might still be working after 20,000 hours. BUT the bad news is, its light output could be unacceptable long before then. And (BTW), the efficiency falls as well, which also compromises that simple value spreadsheet.

IMHO, LED lighting will have arrived when average lifetimes are so long, and reliability so high, that the LED light sources can be permanently built into buildings and furniture, and few will want to cram them inside something that looks like an incandescent light bulb.

How about they pass a bill that calls for a moraturium on new bills until Congress goes back and reviews existing laws and repeals the dumb, stupid crappy ones [that should keep them busy for a year or two].

Since the Greens, Free Trade, and Globalism have driven manufacturers of light bulbs and light fixtures off-shore - how many years would it take for America to go dark if we piss off China?ANS - Algore bulbs are wonderful and last longer than eviiill incandescents - so at least 3 years - so we have lots of time to transfer those jobs and factories to Malaysia or Pakistan!

==================The efficiency argument. A very small, even trivial savings compared to other effeciencies that Greens and the Ruling Elites don't trust the masses to do - so they go with government as nanny.

Energy savings from CFL bulbs for a full year are surpassed by trivial cooking practices. Boiling two meals of pasta in a quart vs gallon plus pot. Three "slow cook crock pot meals" abandoned.

Outside cooking, cancelling delivery and tree-killing by the NY Times for two weeks.

Or a single day where you combine all your shopping and errands into one trip.

2 weeks of abandoning taking your daughter to dance lessons 3 miles away. If she is "green-indoctrinated" say it is for the good of the planet.

Home-educating a single child causes energy savings equivalent to forcing 220 homes a year of ignorant people in Flyover country to have to use CFLs. Each year.

Once upon a time, my Representative was Peter Hoekstra, an honest-to-goodness PHYSICIST in a chamber dominated by lawyers. He actually understands science and how regulation distorts the process. As a bonus, he was really influential on the Intelligence Committee.

Then the 2000-era redistricting came in, and I got stuck with Fred Upton.

Somebody with time should make a list up of energy-savings equivalent to forcing people to buy Chinese CFLs.

Calculate the average energy savings per household, the savings of deadly Earth killing CO2 - from going from an all-incandescent bulb home to Algore PC compliant.

Then contrast that with greater energy savings of other absolutely trivial things people might do instead.

1. The energy savings achieved by growing your own spinach vs. getting it from 3,000 miles away.

2. A one degree drop in the public school thermostat setting in a city of 50,000 offsets the energy savings of all households going under threat of law to CFLs, with enough left over to fly a lucky family round trip to Disney world.

And personally, I like the CFL's because they don't crank out the heat that incandescents generate. My house in Texas is much cooler inside in the summertime with CFL's. This does not mean that I agree with the government telling me what size toilet I can own or what light bulb I can buy or how efficient my car can be. Government is out of control.

Thank you Reps Barton and Upton and House of Representatives for moving to undo such dim-watted, misguided legislation. Hope there is enough support to pass this repeal legislation. The CFL bulbs produce less light, and produce an ugly light besides. They burn out much earlier than advertised. Disposing of them becomes an environmental hazzard due to the mercury. The LED lights are more expensive and produce a cold, harsh light. The main beneficiaries of the original "ban" are the overseas manufacturers - the consumers take it in the socket (they're screwed). Hope the Members of the Senate get a chance to display their own brilliance.

1. Limit toilet flushes to (1) per toilet per day regardless of usage.

2. (1) shower with a low flow shower head per family member per week.

3. Elimination of traffic signals around all state capitol buildings and all federal buildings in DC. Speed limit of 65 mph. No cross walks.

4. Elimination of A/C systems and lighting inside state capitol buildings, Capitol Hill, Senate chambers, etc. Couple this with a mandatory dress code of 3 piece wool suits for men and tight fitting long wool jumpers for women; sessions in June, July and August of each year. This would limit legislative sessions and wasteful partisan actions.

It is sadly ironic that CFL bulbs contain mercury and their widespread use will inevitably lead to more mercury dispersion in the environment due to human activity and accidents.

Proponents of CFLs like to point out that coal-fired power plants emit naturally occuring mercury too (and convential bulbs require more energy), but truth be told, mercury capture and sequestering technology is much more effectively deployed at a point sorce emissions like power plants.

Somebody with time should make a list up of energy-savings equivalent to forcing people to buy Chinese CFLs.

We just had to buy a new refrigerator to replace the one we bought in 2002 at a cost of $1600. The compressor went out.

The repair people said, and I quote: "That's the way it is with these new energy star appliances. The compressors only last about 6 to 8 years. They are meant to do that so you will buy new appliances."

Some energy savings, huh?

It would cost almost $750 to replace the compressor and a new refrigerator comparable to the one we had is about $1500.....again..

So for the sake of saving a few kilowatts of power, we have the privilege of throwing away a perfectly good refrigerator and buying a brand new one. Someone figure the carbon footprint (ptooey) on that. What a freaking waste!!!!!!

AND....the freezer that we used to put our stuff in until we got a new fridge and freezer.....over 35 years old and still running like a champ.

The entire Green Religion is based on false economy and worshiped by morons.

The GreenLiars told us they would last forever, and save a bunch of money on the electric bill.

-didn't notice a dime of differnece on the electric bill, other than the rate increases.

-I have 4 dead ones in the garage. I read I was supposed to take them to Home Depot. I called Home Depot. They don't know anything about that. Now what-I don't feel comfortable just throwing them away, even though I'm sure everyone else is.

-I have 0 dead light bulbs since switching back to normal light bulbs.

I really despise these Green assholes.

No wonder they love the jihadi's so much-they both want everyone to live in the 7th Century.

And personally, I like the CFL's because they don't crank out the heat that incandescents generate. My house in Texas is much cooler inside in the summertime with CFL's. This does not mean that I agree with the government telling me what size toilet I can own or what light bulb I can buy or how efficient my car can be. Government is out of control."

I like the heat from incandescents, but sure, that's basically the single advantage a CFL has. They don't last long, they cost too much, and they produce awful light, but they don't transmit heat (which is another way of saying they use more energy).

I'm in Texas, and a 40 watt bulb I use to read by really isn't changing the temp of my home very much. But if I lower the lamp when it's a little cool in the house, I enjoy the comfort. It's like a spot heater.

At any rate, I would consider supporting banning CFLs simply because they are filled with poison. It's a different scale of environmental concern. I think CFL fans should consider LED bulbs instead.

In my newish house, there are some ceiling light fixtures which ONLY accept four-pin push-in compact fluorescent bulbs -- the fragile looped-back ones which tend to break when removing or inserting them. The ballast is built into the fixture itself. It is a lot like the mandatory low-flush toilets in that choice is not an option.

@Alpha, and how do you think the sane amongst us (i.e., not you) feel about being forced to live with the potential for mercury spills in our homes? Incandescent bulbs may have been energy hogs, but at least they didn't have potential to poison us if they broke.

Are these fools working under a massive Reality Distortion Field? You fucking bet they are. What do you mean it was never your goal? Then what was your goal? Do you fools even understand the laws of unintended consequences? Stop being my mother!!!

Markets are not perfect. Especially when it comes to energy, markets do not operate according to the ideology of free market fundamentalism.

Markets fail to account for pollution from energy waste. People who demand to waste energy are effectively demanding more pollution.

When you pollute by advocating waste, you impose costs on other people who live with the consequences of your filthy waste. And now you say those people should just live with it.

It's immoral.

You know what's immoral? The fact that you pretend to even understand what you are saying and pretending that the rest of us don't. Your ignorance is so blatantly on stage here that you would do well, to tuck tail and stay out of this thread, your liar. You liar daily and nightly. Were you Casey Anthony's mentor?

The sad thing is the public can only get riled up over so much. We have jobs and bills to pay. But these bastards are working 24/7 to control everything. So we win back our right to choose which light bulb we want but we lose the right to pick which insurance coverage we want... if any.

And this goes on day after day, year after year with all of the Constitutional safeguards having been systematically dismantled.

Oh, great. We're remodeling the kitchen. I just looked at the can lights in the cook/prep area and they're these stupid four-prong ones someone else wrote about. Required by code. I read last year that there are no more light bulb factories in the United States. All made in China. Buying tile and where is it made? China. It makes me sick.

So A/L has forgotten the beating he took over the union door-to door hiring issue and is back to tell us he's right and we're wrong again. He must have one of those Men In Black memory eraser gadgets he zaps himself with every day.

The market -- and its effect on the world -- is amoral. People's interactions with each other, those can be moral or immoral.

So let's consider a couple different styles of interaction.

If people's choices (which dictate the market) create an effect that a person or group believes to be undesirable, that person or group may use their freedom of speech to try to educate those whose choices effect the market, thereby changing the effects of the market.

Instead, you have suggested that the "better" system is to strip people of choice, tell them what is "right", and then force them to abide by what is "right" -- rather than educate them as to why it is "better" and "right", and once you've explained the merits of your cause, they will choose to change their behavior on their own (if the cause indeed has merit).

If a person or group is unable to use words to convince the public of the "rightness" of their view, then how definitively "right" can it possibly be? And if it is not definitively "right", how can it be moral to legislatively force it upon the country?